Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
mentioned, while senators graham, ayotte and mccain are focused on what susan rice, ambassador rice said on the sunday talk shows, they are not asking any questions at all about the real questions about security there at the consulate in benghazi. that's where their interest and focus and ire should be pointed. not at a u.n. ambassador who went on the sunday talk shows as a spokesperson for the administration giving, imparting the information she was given by the intelligence community. >> and susan, for those just joining us. this happened moments ago in the last hour. i want to remind everyone what the three senators had to say. take a look. >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before that the 16 september explanation about how four americans died in benghazi, libya, by ambassador rice, i think, does not do justice to the reality at the time. >> clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people was wrong, in fact, ambassador rice said today abs
, to meet with the people you see on your screen here. you have senator john mccain, lindsey graham, kelly ayotte. she went to address concerns they have over statements the ambassador made over the u.s. mission in benghazi on september 11th that left ambassador chris stevens and three other americans dead. i want you to listen to what senator graham, republican south carolina, here, said immediately after the meeting ended. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before that the 16 september explanation about how four americans died in benghazi, libya, by ambassador rice, i think does not do justice to the reality at the time, and in hindsight clearly was completely wrong. but here's the key. in real time, it was a statement disconnected from reality. >> and now here is senator ayotte. >> i want to say that i'm more troubled today, knowing -- having met with the acting director of the cia and ambassador rice, because it's certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. and clearly the impression that wa
of her as a spokesman for the administration. one suspects that senators graham and mccain and ayotte have other reasons for opposing her and are using this as an excuse but it's fairly flimsy because while there are legitimate questions to be asked about what happened in benghazi -- >> but dana, hang on a second. if you have a problem with susan rice, let her be nominated, challenge her, and go through due process. why do this on the basis of intelligence that she had received that's consistent with the information that she was given by the cia? >> not only is it illogical, it is counterproductive because they're putting the president in a position of saying he's going to nominate her if he wasn't before because now he's not going to look like he's caving in or backing down. so they're going to achieve the exact opposite of what they're purporting to want. >> absolutely astonishing. goldie, conservatives, as we know, are attacking ambassador rice for admitting that the initial intelligence was wrong in one respect, that there was no process in benghazi, but she's admitted that the in
there was a no love loss between senators graham, mccain and ayotte. vis-a-vis the u.s./u.n. ambassador. were you surprised susan collins went into a new line of attacks specifically indicting susan rice in the kenyan embassy attacks in the late '90 snz. >> yes. it was surprising. from folks i spoke to on capitol hill involved in national security issues did not see susan collins going into that direction. susan collins is a moderate republican, not one to be known to be an obstructionist in any capacity. she was one of the primary sponsors of don't ask, don't tell repeal when that went through last year. so it's interesting to see susan colin goss on this line of attack saying she doesn't want to see the u.n. ambassador be a political spokesperson like susan rice was on the sunday shows. also opening up the new line of attacks when susan rice was in charge during the attacks in africa. that is something to a chill observer seems like okay, susan collins has done her research, that would be brought up in a confirmation hearing specifically saying why did you fail the country supposedly back in th
. senators ayotte, graham and mccain, republicans who had from the get-go before they talked to her vowed -- or threatened to block her nomination. so that was one thing. today is different because that senator you just played, susan collins, is among the last remaining moderate republicans here. she does have a lot of information about what happened because she is the top republican on the homeland security committee, and she actually has a history of supporting susan rice. she was the one who introduced susan rice when she was at her confirmation hearing for the post she's in now as u.n. ambassador. so the fact that susan collins even has questions, i asked her point blank if she could support rice for secretary of state, and her answer was not yet. she has to have other questions answered. that's not a good sign for rice, but we should underscore a couple of things. one, she hasn't been nominated yet. and, two, she -- rice does have a lot of support from democrats who still have the majority. the issue is whether or not she'll need, if she's nominated, 60 votes to get confirmed. >> wha
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)